m (Added categories) |
420dengist (talk | contribs) m (:)) Tag: Visual edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Social-imperialism''' is a term commonly used by [[Anti-revisionism| | '''Social-imperialism''' is a term commonly used by [[Anti-revisionism|anti-revisionists]] to suggest that [[Actually existing socialism|socialist states]], such as the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]] after [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and the [[People's Republic of China]] after [[Mao Zedong]], had ceased to be socialist and instead become [[Fascism|fascist]] and [[Imperialism|imperialist]]. | ||
== History == | == History == | ||
As a term, "social-imperialism" originated in a 1916 quote by [[Vladimir Lenin]] where he describes the [[liberal]] [[Social democracy|social-democratic]] [[SPD]] as "socialist in name, imperialist in deeds"<ref> | |||
{{Citation | {{Citation | ||
| author = V.I. Lenin | | author = V.I. Lenin | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| quote = “Social-Democratic” Party of Germany are justly called “social-imperialists,” that is, socialists in words and imperialists in deeds; | | quote = “Social-Democratic” Party of Germany are justly called “social-imperialists,” that is, socialists in words and imperialists in deeds; | ||
}} | }} | ||
</ref>; | </ref>. In this context, the term is similar to "social chauvinism"; notably, the suggestion was not that such organizations were formerly socialist and had turned imperialist, but rather that they ''were'' imperialist organizations under a veneer of fake socialist phraseology. | ||
Afterward, the term was not used again in any notable Marxist texts or analyses until it was reintroduced by [[Mao]] in 1964, after the [[Sino-Soviet split]], when he described the Khrushchev-era Soviet Union as "''a Hitlerite imperialist state''"<ref>https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1964/phnycom.htm</ref>. The term subsequently saw further use in [[Enver Hoxha]]'s treatise "Imperialism and the Revolution"<ref>https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/imp_ch4.htm</ref>. | |||
Notably, Mao nor Hoxha ever explained what the material basis of a "social-imperialist" state would be, and what the [[social formation]] of such a state looked like. [[Marxism-Leninism]] traditionally holds that the class character of a state changes only through [[Counterrevolution|(counter)]][[revolution]], and not through [[reform]] alone; with this in mind, it is generally accepted by Marxist-Leninists today that the theory of "social-imperialism" lacks a material explanation, and may in fact constitute a [[Left communism|left deviation]]. | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
[[Category:Hoxhaism]] | [[Category:Hoxhaism]] | ||
[[Category:Anti-revisionism]] | [[Category:Anti-revisionism]] | ||
Revision as of 05:06, 3 June 2023
Social-imperialism is a term commonly used by anti-revisionists to suggest that socialist states, such as the Soviet Union after Stalin and the People's Republic of China after Mao Zedong, had ceased to be socialist and instead become fascist and imperialist.
History
As a term, "social-imperialism" originated in a 1916 quote by Vladimir Lenin where he describes the liberal social-democratic SPD as "socialist in name, imperialist in deeds"[1]. In this context, the term is similar to "social chauvinism"; notably, the suggestion was not that such organizations were formerly socialist and had turned imperialist, but rather that they were imperialist organizations under a veneer of fake socialist phraseology.
Afterward, the term was not used again in any notable Marxist texts or analyses until it was reintroduced by Mao in 1964, after the Sino-Soviet split, when he described the Khrushchev-era Soviet Union as "a Hitlerite imperialist state"[2]. The term subsequently saw further use in Enver Hoxha's treatise "Imperialism and the Revolution"[3].
Notably, Mao nor Hoxha ever explained what the material basis of a "social-imperialist" state would be, and what the social formation of such a state looked like. Marxism-Leninism traditionally holds that the class character of a state changes only through (counter)revolution, and not through reform alone; with this in mind, it is generally accepted by Marxist-Leninists today that the theory of "social-imperialism" lacks a material explanation, and may in fact constitute a left deviation.
References
- ↑
““Social-Democratic” Party of Germany are justly called “social-imperialists,” that is, socialists in words and imperialists in deeds;”
V.I. Lenin (1916). Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism: 'CRITIQUE OF IMPERIALISM'. [PDF] - ↑ https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1964/phnycom.htm
- ↑ https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/imp_ch4.htm